India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

[krishna_krishna]

NRao Sir, better if you post links with summary that way better for forum readers.

Btw from your link. Here you go our trying to be strategic partners view on sharing critical technology:

"You talked about cooperation in UAVs. India has for some time expressed interest in procuring armed drones. Do you see any movement on that front?

Armed drones are a problem just because technology transfer is an issue. I don’t think we are doing armed drones any time soon or a specific program to develop one soon. We have pretty good capability there but there are issues. But we are working on UAV technologies like sensor technologies."

[Austin]

Ajai Shukla: Get real in US-India defence ties

Ashton Carter is in India again for his third visit in a year as America's defence secretary. He is one of an apparently inexhaustible stream of US officials making frequent pilgrimages to India to participate in an incredible 80 dialogues under way between the two countries. Last month, Delhi hosted Admiral Harry Harris - the chief of US Pacific Command (USPACOM), a domain that in his words "stretches from Bollywood to Hollywood" - who expansively looked forward to the day when "American and Indian Navy vessels steaming together will become a common and welcome sight throughout Indo-Asia-Pacific waters." A couple of days later, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar subjected Harris' proposal to a dose of reality, observing testily that the question of joint patrolling did not arise. (The Indian Navy has never carried out joint patrols with a foreign navy. However, it routinely carries out "coordinated patrols" with the navies of maritime neighbours, each one's ships and aircraft remaining on their respective sides of the International Maritime Boundary Line.)

Undeterred by India's standoffishness, an American congressman, George Holding (a Republican from North Carolina) has introduced a Bill in the House of Representatives entitled the "US-India Defense Technology and Partnership Act". If passed by the US Congress (which is packed with India-huggers), this will write the defence relationship into US law, formalising our status as "a major partner of the United States". President Barack Obama's administration has nurtured the US-India relationship, instituting the Defence Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI) and establishing an "India Rapid Reaction Cell" in the Pentagon to deal with bureaucratic hurdles. The new legislation seeks to write these ad hoc measures into US law so that subsequent administrations inherit these structures. The Bill also notes, somewhat controversially: "The [US] President is encouraged to coordinate with India on an annual basis to develop military contingency plans for addressing threats to mutual security interests of both countries."



Yet, New Delhi remains a priggish suitor in the face of Washington's ardent embrace. Even those Indian mandarins who are willing to put aside Cold War confrontation and two generations of technology denial regimes, do not yet see unalloyed strategic convergence with the US. True, there are common concerns about an aggressive China's emergence. Sure, the US wants to build up India and its military as a bulwark that would share the burden of regional security. Yes, Prime Minister Narendra Modi's "Act East" policy aligns with the Obama administration's "rebalance to Asia". Even so, most insiders sum up the strategic relationship thus: convergence to the east, divergence to the west.

Indian policymakers note bitterly the American belief that the road to peace in Kabul runs through Islamabad, thereby cutting New Delhi out of a significant role in Afghanistan. They point out that, notwithstanding the Indo-US convergence on China, Washington tacitly supports the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor and the development of the Gwadar Port, which will strengthen the China-Pakistan relationship. Despite America's counter-terrorism dialogue with India and increased intelligence sharing - which Indian officials downplay as "tactical cooperation" - Washington accepts the continued existence of India-focused jihadists in Pakistan, while demanding tough action by Islamabad against pan-Islamist groups in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (Fata). The US continues supplying cutting-edge war-fighting equipment, such as Block 50/52 F-16 fighters, to Pakistan for "counter-terrorist operations", ignoring New Delhi's protests that such capability is not needed to fight terrorists. A top Indian policymaker sums up: "India and America were never together on AfPak, even during the George W Bush presidency. We are not in alignment now either, and we never will be."


Yet, signalling growing strategic maturity, New Delhi has de-coupled US-India ties from the AfPak paradigm and is, in fact, pushing to militarily associate India with US Central Command, which is responsible for America's military interests in AfPak, Iran and West Asia (India and the Indian Ocean fall under US Pacific Command, with which New Delhi already works.) That has allowed the defence relationship to steam along nicely. An expanded Indo-US defence framework agreement was extended for a decade till 2025. As US policymakers never tire of repeating, the US does more exercises with the Indian military than with any other. This summer the Indian Air Force is taking a big contingent of aircraft to the US for the highly regarded Red Flag Exercise. American defence equipment is flowing in steadily and, if India contracts for the M777 ultralight howitzer and signs repeat orders for C-17 Globemaster-III transport aircraft and P8-I maritime aircraft, the US would retain its new status as India's biggest arms supplier.

Under the DTTI, set up in 2012 to facilitate US-India defence trade, India seems likely to request US expertise in designing its second indigenous aircraft carrier (the first is almost built and is scheduled to be commissioned in 2018). If, as seems likely, the Indian Navy switches from its current (Russian style) ski-launch tradition to an (American style) catapult system for getting fighters airborne from the carrier, a host of American systems, including the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighter, carrier-launched airborne early warning aircraft like the E-2D Hawkeye, and specialist helicopters could make an entry into the Indian Navy. Just as Russia has come to dominate the land segments of armoured vehicle and air defence systems, the US may similarly dominate several dimensions of the Indian Navy's aircraft carrier battle groups.

Mr Carter knows that, at least in the short-to-medium term, the US-India partnership would obtain greater momentum from high-technology transfer than from talking up the China threat. The DTTI framework has promise, now that the Pentagon has begun viewing it as a mechanism for joint development, rather than just as a backdoor through which US vendors could bypass the Indian acquisition process. New Delhi, too, has begun to appreciate the potential technology benefits in the relationship, now that it is looking beyond the Make in India slogan, which is more about low-tech, build-to-print component manufacture, than high-end systems engineering. India has a long tradition of defence trade on a government-to-government basis. But America is different, with its large private defence vendors, who own the intellectual property that goes into their systems. That means New Delhi cannot pick up the phone to Washington and say, "Will you give us this technology"? Although the US government does control technology, obtaining access will also require a parallel process of negotiating with vendors and making a business case for transferring systems, technology and manufacturing to India. And that would be best done by India's new crop of private sector defence vendors.

[SSridhar]

That Manoj Joshi article was brilliant.

The US has 'treaty allies' all over the world, basically four kinds. OSA, NATO, ANZUS and bilateral. Pakistan is a bilateral ally, even a Major Non-Nato Ally, a treaty that puts it on par with a NATO country. That should make the US come to Pakistan's side in case of an attack on it. This is like the Mutual Defence Assistance Agreement signed in 1954 by the Eisenhower administration to "preserve and maintain the integrity of Pakistan" and to take "appropriate action, including the use of armed forces, as may be mutually agreed upon . . . in order to assist the Government of Pakistan at its request." How much to believe that treaty is another issue. So, the reference to India that it will be treated like a 'treaty ally' is laughable especially when the US also has a similar or even a much stronger agreement with Pakistan (Pakistan having learnt from its experience would, I hope, have plugged some holes). The US interpretation of the 1954 treaty was that it was applicable only in the case of Communist attacks on Pakistan while, of course, Pakistan's was very different. It thought it had sewn up a water-tight treaty which didn't help it in the end.

The LEMOA (LSA) essentially gives us nothing as India has no capability or need to project power into the Pacific and make use of American facilities there. OTOH, it could be of some benefit to the US military. Today, we have only two adversaries. The LSA has no particular advantage with either of them. The cosiness of the US with Pakistan, Pakistan’s inevitability in the US calculus of its geopolitics, and its stronger defence relationship with that country will always stand in the way of India tackling Pakistan and Pakistan will always get away with its terrorism, blackmail and posturing. If OBL’s 10-year long protection under the ISI, if the haemorrhage in terms of human casualties suffered by the US Army in Afghanistan due to Pakistan’s ‘hunting with the hounds and running with the hare’ policy, if Pakistan's audacity in rejecting any action against the Haqqanis etc are not going to change the US attitude, then nothing will. The overlapping US interests and its ability to influence the course of events to suit its own self-centred needs through these treaties would come in our way if we bind too closely with them. We do not realize that we bleed heavily due to Pakistan in many ways and unless there is understanding between the US and India on defanging Pakistan, we stand to gain not much. The assembly line for Hornets and design assistance for aircraft carriers etc are meant against China which alone is the US interest. These will be formidable but will not stop our bleeding. The US is also supplying to Pakistan India-specific military hardware under the guise of 'counter-terrorism' cooperation and against strong Indian opposition. We are also not realizing the effect of Pakistan on the Islamist jihadi groups like IM etc. Pakistan has to be stopped; and these treaties will just do the opposite.

Though China is our major threat, it is my opinion that China cannot be taken on, even with US support, without effectively tackling Pakistan now.

We have to take a re-look at the US-Pakistani relationship. We have always felt and rightly so too that the US-Pak relationship is transactional. But, that relationship has endured and grown for seven decades now with hiccups in between nevertheless. That relationship has protected Pakistan, both militarily and economically. Otherwise. India’s security problem would have been solved many years ago notwithstanding our own Himalayan blunders. In effect, the US-Pak transactional relationship is enduring and foundational and is completely against our interests. Moreover, it is harming us big time.

The CISMOA has the disadvantage that the US will know every movement of ours, especially the strategic assets and if one goes by the mistrust we have with the US, we can expect it to tip-off Pakistan. The BECA may be ssuperfluous in a few years. So, effectively, we gain nothing at all while the US will bring us under their thumb.

I do not know what Ajay Shukla is conveying at the end.

[nvishal]

@ Sridhar, Cosmo, Nrao et all,

Neither the UPA nor the NDA has any desire to get caught up in any foreign wars. We have the past and history staring down. We have a situation with an expanding china and we acknowledge it. But if you think we are going to partner with the US in some form of a team to contain china then you're wrong.


The rise of china is not only a threat to us but also a benefit. If india(and russia) cannot drive the west of the east then why stop the chinese from trying to do so? If the chinese can lay off our back while doing this then we can live with it.

If the pro-US guys here have a problem with china, then go talk to the russians because you're getting nothing(thenga!!) from the americans.

Added later: sridhar, didn't see your last post while typing this.

[Melwyn]

Clinton holdovers seek to derail Modi-Obama outreach

Overall, prospects for a transformation in India-US relations despite numerous false starts in the past remain bright, especially in view of Prime Minister Modi’s commitment to innovative diplomacy designed to tap the global geopolitical synergies available to India. However, for such a change to take effect, President Obama will need to recover his autonomy in decision-making, and return to his efforts at changing the India-US relationship in a way that makes the two largest democracies form allies in a world filled with dangers common to both.

[member_29172]

Regarding the nautanki of us hooman right brigade a few days ago, a response :


The Arrogance Of The USCIRF

Isn’t it nothing but the white arrogance to assume that the United States reserves rights of admission while its politicians have an all access pass to the world?


Dear Ms. Katrina Swett Lantos,

This is with reference to the remarks made by you and your colleague and the chairman of the United States Commission for International Religious Freedom about Indian government’s decision to deny visa to the team of commissioners who wished to visit the country in order to investigate incidents of religious intolerance and suppression of minority’s rights. You have termed the decision of Indian government as “a tremendous missed opportunity”. I beg to differ with you, I feel this decision has provided Indians like me with a tremendous opportunity to take a closer look at the USCIRF and its functionaries.

First of all, let’s provide some context to this controversy. US state department denied visa to India’s current Prime Minister Mr. Narendra Modi (who at that time was the Chief Minister of Gujarat ) , holding him responsible ( basis innuendo and hearsay than any real evidence) for the communal riots in his home state of Gujarat in 2002.

modiIn an interview to New York Times carried on August 13th ,2013, you in your capacity as a member of the USCIRF advocated continuing the policy of not allowing Mr. Modi entry in USA even if he became Prime Minister. As a matter of fact, the timing of the interview which was published barely a month before BJP made the official announcement of Mr. Modi’s name as its Prime Ministerial Candidate (it was a foregone conclusion in political circles at least 2-3 months prior to that) coupled with your opening remarks where you say “For the people of India, I think it is important for them to consider very carefully who it is who they want to be their next prime minister. But I think it is a bit of information that will help them as they go through that electoral process. It is our view and view of many others that Mr. Modi shall not be granted the privilege of U.S. visa because of the very serious doubts that remain and that hang over Mr. Modi relative to his role in the horrific events of 2002 in Gujarat.”

I will circle back to your interview full of conjectures, suppositions and blatant lies later. But for now let’s establish the fact that you did not wish Mr. Narendra Modi to enter your country even if he became a Prime Minister (to speak nothing of the fact that you had the imperialist arrogance to assume Indian voter will care two hoots about whether US allows our PM to enter their country) so now that he is the PM (and given a red carpet by your own countrymen and President) why do you find it so surprising that India is reluctant to let you in?

Isn’t it nothing but the white arrogance to assume that the United States reserves rights of admission while its politicians have an all access pass to the world? Because there is also no mistaking the fact that USCIRF is a political body run by career politicians. You yourself made an unsuccessful bid for the Congressional seat vacated by your husband in 2002 along with two primary bids (2008 senate and 2010 Congress, both unsuccessful).

The Chairman of the USCIRF Robert P George has been active in politics for over four decades. Leonard A Leo, a former Chairperson of the USCIRF has served as the Catholic strategist for the 2004 Bush Presidential campaign. I can go on but you see my point.

Having said that, let me, as a non-office holding Indian express what are my reservations about your proposed field trip. This is what USCIRF chairman Robert P George had to say about the visa denial “One would expect that the Indian government would allow for more transparency than have these nations, and would welcome the opportunity to convey its views directly to USCIRF…”

Well Mr. George it is not that we don’t welcome this opportunity but we do not see the need of it. First, and let me not be indelicate about it but Americans are notorious for their prejudiced and often hilariously wrong knowledge about India. From pulp novelist the late Sidney Sheldon mentioning Kolkata as India’s capital in his 1987 novel “windmills of the Gods” to thousands of average television viewers taking Hindu- Indian origin Miss America Nina Davuluri as an Arab (member of Al-qaeda, no less), hardly a day goes by when we do not see your average ill-informed American surprised at not encountering elephants while walking on the streets of our national capital.



Personally, I do not see this necessarily as a racism issue (though there is a compelling case of racism to be made against folks who call the daughter of an Indian origin doctor Arab Terrorist because she had the temerity to win a beauty competition), I just think generally you people are ignorant to the extent that would be considered comical by the educated Indians. It is a proven fact that on the eve of the Iraq war, over 70 % Americans thought Saddam Hussein was personally involved in 9/11.

A National Geographic Survey showed one in three Americans could not find Great Britain on a map. In the same group 65 % respondent thought America’s population to be between 750 million to 2 billion. It was actually 298 million. A National Science Foundation poll suggests nearly 1 out of 4 Americans believe the sun revolves around the earth. I am all for outsiders coming in and telling us what we are doing wrong, but in light of these staggering numbers you will pardon me for being a tad cynical.

Now let’s circle back to the interview you gave to NYT and analyse it a bit for intent as well as information quality.

While speaking about the convicted state minister Ms. Maya Kodnani, you have this to say “it is highly unlikely at the very least that this minister would have been engaged to the degree that she was without the knowledge, without the direction from Mr. Modi.”. Ms. Swett, there is a term for this kind of insinuation from your own history. It is guilty by association and it invokes the darkest days of state persecution in USA’s history i.e. the McCarthy’s communist witch-hunt. I wonder if any politician in 21st century will make a statement as irresponsible as this.

Next you mention the “There is of course the very damning sworn notarized affidavit of former deputy commissioner of police Sanjeev Bhatt, which is really an eyewitness account. He is not simply providing sworn testimony as to events that happened on the streets. His testimony is also regarding things that were said by Mr. Modi in his presence”.

As you are aware ,Mr. Bhatt’s testimony was rubbished by the SIT investigating the Gujarat riots and in a ruling given over a year before your interview with NYT, the SIT had conclusively ruled that Bhatt was not present at the meeting you referred to and hence his testimony was false.

As of today, Bhatt is terminated from his services and his attempts to appeal have all been unsuccessful. The supreme court of India, while quashing his plea noted “Bhatt “was not acting bona-fide and was catering to the interest elsewhere”, and further stated “petitioner (Bhatt) was in active touch with leaders of rival political party, NGOs, their lawyers tried to play media card, was being tutored by NGOs. He had probably forgotten that he was a senior IPS officer”.

So much for the damning sworn notarized affidavit eh?

Next you shift grounds (sensing lack of evidence probably) and say “there have been very few convictions”. Wrong. There have been over 440 convictions that include the sitting minister of state Ms. Maya Kodnani. Compare that with your own country that has convicted less than 320 terrorists since 9/11.

The most ridiculous (or grave) misstep occurs in the very next sentence where you say “Certainly in our system of justice you can be found not guilty, which is not the same thing as found innocent.” What?? No, really, what??? Isn’t ‘innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt’ the gold standard of criminal justice system? You are actually rubbishing that; saying, sometimes just because I can’t prove your guilt, doesn’t mean I can’t stop accusing you of exactly the same crime you were exonerated of? You are a Doctor of Law from the California University Ms. Swett. As Tom Cruise asks Demi Moore In “A Few Good Men” “were you sick the day they taught law at law school?”

Lest this become a political shouting match, allow me to move on from your ill-founded opinions about Gujarat riots and concentrate on your understanding of USCIRF’s role. In a question about the selective involvement of USCIRF you brazenly admit “we tend to expect more of democracies than we do of dictatorships.” I am sorry for being blunt, but this is the statement of a pencil pushing career bureaucrat who would like to wield power only on soft targets. Basically not only you are aware that you are opposing religious extremism where it is at its lowest (if at all) but you approve of it as a policy.

American Comedian Bill Maher, in this hilarious clip here calls this attitude, (even if he is talking about a different set of liberals) “nit-picky, intra mural attacking of friends for insufficient purity. Compulsively cleaning up little corners of the room that is already quiet clean while there are giant piles of s**t everywhere else”. The social justice warriors of Indian history were made up of far tougher fibre than this Ms. Swett. Those agents of change survived attacks on their lives and social boycott for their beliefs and battles. To see a member of the most protected country in the world throw in towel like this before dictatorship is truly sad.

You conclude this interview with the classic liberal “disagreement as proof of moral deficiency” argument where you term the difference amongst US lawmakers whether to allow Mr. Modi visa or not as “I don’t think it breaks along partisan lines. I think it breaks down along which congressmen prioritize human rights versus who don’t.” Bottom line- whoever doesn’t agree with your world-view basically does not have human rights as a priority. I fail to see how the Indian government does not admire your open mindedness and spirit of democratic debate.

I also feel your own support base and affiliations have several questionable components from the viewpoint of religious freedom. Herbert Sandler, who supported your unsuccessful bid to Congress in 2002, is among the biggest benefactors of “Centre for American progress” a so called left leaning think tank who is often accused of anti-Semitism as well as criticized for failure to disclose its contributors.



I find this truly astonishing given that your own father was a holocaust survivor. Also and while we admire your stand to term ISIS acts in Syria as “genocide”, as a democratic party appointment to the USCIRF (chosen by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid), we really do not see enough outrage against the Obama administration’s soft stand on Islamic radicals.

Robert P GeorgeThe other part that makes me worry when I take a look at the composition of USCIRF is of course, the history of its own members when it comes to civil rights issue in America and other countries. Prof. Robert P George, the chairperson, is a lifelong opponent of a woman’s right to choose, in fact he left Democratic Party in the 1980s due to his difference with a majority of them over the issue of abortion.

In 2009, while America was waging two wars and the world was in the grip of the most serious financial crisis since 1929, Prof George drafted the notorious “ Manhattan Declaration: a call to Christian conscience” ; a manifesto that basically asks all Christians to reaffirm their anti-abortion, anti-stem cell research, anti-same sex marriage stance. The same manifesto also calls for “civil disobedience” if a Christian feels his/her basic values are being challenged by the country’s law.

This document was roundly criticized by all but the most fanatical Evangelicals and Apple was even forced to withdraw the Manhattan declaration app due to its bigotry and homophobic content. Mr. George is also a leading member of the “theoconservatism” movement that preaches extremist Christian values and believes that America is rooted in the idea of Christianity.

In India, women have an absolute right to choose, and that debate was settled over forty years back. Any politician claiming abortion as murder is apt to be laughed out of his seat in the next election. We encourage stem cell research, mostly because we are not wacko enough to see life in a petri dish. The debate on same sex marriage is picking momentum here, we really do not need bigots who preach civil disobedience against usage of condoms to come and observe us.

Another of your commissioners Mary Ann Glendon was chosen for Laetare Medal by Notre Dame University in 2009. She denied the medal. The reason? The School was hosting as commencement speaker and bestowing an honorary degree upon a person who was pro-choice in the abortion debate. The name of the controversial speaker? Barrack Obama, President of the United States.

Look I am not taking the moral high ground here. I understand there are two sides to every debate. All I am saying is when you talk about positions like observers and inspectors about something as intimate and controversial as religion, it is fair expectation to have those observers having as little skin in the game as possible. People who insult the President of their own country for his views on abortion and people who drafts manifesto to ban stem cell research have a lot of skin in this particular game.

Related reading


The Religious Crusades of the CIA

Narendra Modi’s visa denial still an unhealed wound
For people like George and Gledon to be neutral about a Hindu majority country in view of their own fanatical faith in their religion is about as naïve as a Pepsico Inspector impartially giving quality assurance certificate to coca cola plant.In your recent comments you have welcome us to come to USA and inspect the treatment of minorities in USA.

The offer is very generous Ms. Swett but I think we will wait till you sort out the treatment given to women (at half the population they are hardly the minority and yet one half of your political apparatus is intent on crushing their right to choose), and get some discipline in your college campuses that are fast becoming armies of leftist thugs who literally shout “fire” in a crowded theatre. The problem with USA is not hidden bigotry and injustice. It is out in the open. Problem is that of political will power.

And unlike you, our faith in the institution of democracy demands we give you a little more time to set your house in order.

http://indiafacts.org/the-arrogance-of-the-uscirf/

[member_29172]

There is absolutely no value in wasting time on this non sensical "relationship". The fact that someone actually agreed to LSA shows the average IQ of ministers here. It is moronic to let a country that isn't eastern, that doesn't share our values nor does it care about Indian lives, actually share our weapons and facilities.

We don't go around ramming our nose in places where it doesn't belong, it is a completely one sided deal. Let the self proclaimed super power protect its western allies out of its own pocket. These b@stards certainly like to chant the mantra of western brotherhood everywhere, why not show brotherhood where it actually matters?

This is a country that has consistently funded a rogue terrorist nation, despite several warnings and advices to not do so, this is a country that spied on our government and people as if we were the soviet union, this is a country that consistently entertains and funds anti-Indian organisations and propaganda... cut this non sense once and for all, let these fat ****** and their western brothers sort their mess on their own.

It has nothing to do with us, if anything, west has no reason to be in Asian waters, or African waters or Pacific waters...

[Yagnasri]

As I posted before, relying too much on US goodwill and relationship is going to be dangerous for us once suit pants occupy the white house. As of today entire deep state is behind her and barring some serious mishap she will win the elections.

[NRao]

India, U.S. 'agree in principle' on sharing military logistics - Carter

India and the United States have agreed in principle to share military logistics, U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said on Tuesday, as both sides seek to counter the growing maritime assertiveness of China.

Washington has been urging New Delhi to sign the Logistics Support Agreement that allows the two militaries to use each other’s land, air and naval bases for resupplies, repair and rest.

But after years of dithering, the two sides said an agreement was in hand, although not yet ready for signing.

"We have agreed in principle that all the issues are resolved. We now need to finalise the draft," Carter said after talks with his Indian counterpart, Manohar Parrikar.

New Delhi has had concerns that the logistics agreement will draw it into a military alliance with the United States and undermine its traditional autonomy.

But Prime Minister Narendra Modi's administration, faced with an assertive China expanding its influence in the South China Sea and into the Indian Ocean, has signalled its desire to draw closer to the United States. China is also a close ally of India's arch rival, Pakistan.

New Delhi is keen to access U.S. technology for Modi's "Make in India" plans to build a domestic defence industrial base and cut expensive arms imports.

Carter said the two countries would also soon conclude a commercial shipping information exchange agreement.

[SSridhar]

India says to conclude military logistics pact with US - Reuters

India and the United States have agreed to conclude a logistics supply agreement in the coming months, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar said, after talks with his US counterpart Ash Carter.

The logistics supply agreement that the two sides have been negotiating for over a decade will allow the Indian and US militaries to access each other's bases.

[kmkraoind]

Raksha Mantri’s Statement at the Joint Press Conference with Dr Ashton Carter, United States Defence Secretary - PIB.NIC.IN

[SSridhar]

Raksha Mantri’s Statement at the Joint Press Conference with Dr Ashton Carter, United States Defence Secretary - PIB.NIC.IN

From the above,

With a view to taking our cooperation forward, Secretary Carter and I have agreed to set up a new bilateral Maritime Security Dialogue between officials from our respective Defence and External Affairs Ministries. We have also decided to enhance our on-going Navy-to-Navy discussions to cover submarine-related issues. Both countries will also deepen cooperation in Maritime Domain Awareness by finalizing a ‘White Shipping’ Agreement.

It is in the maritime domain that the two countries have been placing a lot of emphasis lately.

In a report sent to the US Congress on August 20, 2015, the Pentagon said that the US has developed a three-pronged approach for maritime cooperation with India that included maintaining a shared vision on maritime security issues, upgrading bilateral maritime security partnership and collaborating to both build regional partner capacity and improve regional maritime domain awareness. It is natural because of the tensions in the Indo-Pacific region. The quoted part above confirms that. The 'submarine-related issues' probably refers to DSRV.

The Joint Strategic Vision announced in January 2015 by both the US President Obama and the Indian PM Modi also spoke of the importance of safeguarding maritime security and ensuring freedom of navigation and overflight throughout the region, especially in the South China Sea. On the issue of ‘upgrading bilateral maritime security partnership’, it spoke of the on-going Op Malabar exercises and RIMPAC multilateral exercise. The joint communiqué at the end of the c. 2011 annual US-Australia strategic review meeting called Ausmin, called unusually for, “deeper strategic ties between Australia, the US and India, welcomed India's engagement in East Asia and called for greater co-operation with India in providing for maritime security.”

In c. 2012, India also ensured that the US was inducted as a dialogue partner in the IOR-ARC (Indian Ocean Rim Association for Regional Cooperation). In his last meeting with the US president Barack Obama, Man Mohan Singh agreed to an Indian Navy warship participating in the RIMPAC (Rim of the Pacific) naval exercises, something which India had avoided earlier. In early 2016, the US began to push India for joint patrols of the Indo-Pacific region. During his visit to India in March 2016, Admiral Harry Harris, U.S. Pacific Commander said: “We should be exercising together and we should be turning those exercises into coordinated operations.” He also mentioned that at the trilateral India-Japan-Australia meeting [in late 2015 in Tokyo at the Foreign Secretaries level], the three sides discussed “maritime security — including freedom of navigation patrols — and trilateral cooperation”. He also suggested considering expanding the trilateral Op. Malabar into a quadrilateral one by including the Australian Navy.

[krishna_krishna]

"We have agreed in principle that all the issues are resolved. We now need to finalise the draft," Carter said after talks with his defence minister Manohar Parrikar."

Best scenario one can think we can talk forever to finalize like the Rafale deal we agreed in principle.

[NRao]

It is in the maritime domain that the two countries have been placing a lot of emphasis lately.

It is not just any maritime, it is very focused on PACOM. Other COMs do not really care for Indian concerns, as can be seen in A'sthan (which just BTW is expected to be moved to PACOM, along with Pakistan). Nothing has changed there.

What seems to have changed - in the past week - is the addition of "fighter" to the narrative (before he left) and now "co-production" of the next carrier (in Goa).

BTW, I read that for the F-16, min LM num is 200 and for the F-18 min Boeing num is 150. The 300 seems to be an Indian num that perhaps includes exports.

[SSridhar]

But F-16 & F-18 were offered & rejected by India five years back.

[ldev]

In a report sent to the US Congress on August 20, 2015, the Pentagon said that the US has developed a three-pronged approach for maritime cooperation with India that included maintaining a shared vision on maritime security issues, upgrading bilateral maritime security partnership and collaborating to both build regional partner capacity and improve regional maritime domain awareness. It is natural because of the tensions in the Indo-Pacific region. The quoted part above confirms that. The 'submarine-related issues' probably refers to DSRV.

May refer to DSRVs as well as other submarine operations. I read somewhere that there is an existing agreement between India and the US that the US will deploy a DSRV within 71 hours at India's request in the event of an Indian Navy submarine issue. Will try and find that article again.

[Prem Kumar]

The problem I see with India is that we don't draw any red-lines - i.e. Lakshman-Rekhas that must be respected before any deep-embrace can happen. Let me list a few Lakshman Rekhas in my opinion:

1) USA should stop arming Pakistan and must declare it a state sponsor of terror

2) We will conduct TN-Bomb tests & ICBM tests. USA must welcome these actions

3) Rollback USCIRF & stop sending missionaries to India. Clamp down on Hinduphobia in American Universities & public discourse

All the above are existential issues for India. The US Govt machinery can make all 3 happen. If they cannot do this, they can stick their heads in places where the sun doesn't shine

[NRao]

India and the United States have agreed to conclude a logistics supply agreement in the coming months, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar said, after talks with his US counterpart Ash Carter.

The logistics supply agreement that the two sides have been negotiating for over a decade will allow the Indian and US militaries to access each other's bases.

MP is supposed to visit China - supposedly to build closer ties ( ). So, I suspect that is what prevented an earlier signing of the the LCA-IN.

[Prem Kumar]

These "framework agreements" are a way for USA to fight China till the last Indian

[Cosmo_R]

so u cut and run without intelligent debate ?

Intelligent debates begin with intelligent hypotheses. Rants about historical wrongs done us don't qualify—they merely waste the bandwidth of members who must plow through them.

Nations cannot/do not/should not behave like individuals. Nations must keep long term interests front and center even as the circumstances change.

What the PRC is doing today to the Indonesians and Filipinos, they will do to us on land and sea soon enough. We don't have the money, the capacity or the will to deter them. We need to team up with countries who have converging interests and the resources to execute.

If you want to lay down a viable hypothesis on what form the team-up should or should not take, I'm happy to join in civil debate. Bring in Mumbai/Pakistan, and other stuff extraneous to the centrality, I get bored and tune out.

[ramana]

Prem Kumar,

One DRDO chief once said, India does not draw redlines or chose what it wants as it reveals current state of affairs in India. So we let the others offer and pick and chose. Sometimes choose things we don't need for confusion.
This mode of operations was developed over decades.

SSriodhar, They want karwar base access.
The ide is to shift the naval fleet to Indian Ocean as the Asian century emerges and they are person non grata everywhere else and :Philippines is too close to South China Sea conflict zone. The ocean trade passes through this region.

Essentially as China flounders due to its many contradictions they want to ensure India wont attack China ships by being a partner to India.
Same time they will tell China of how they are saving their sea borne trade.
Its old East India Company in the 1600-1700 era.

They are ambivalent about China.

[ramana]

Cosmo_R every one is not endowed in articulating well reasoned arguments.
Its elders duty to recognize this and engage.

What is the use of all our learning and privilege if we can't indulge our own?

[NRao]

But F-16 & F-18 were offered & rejected by India five years back.

I addressed that topic in an earlier post. The MMRCA competition was about checking of rows upon rows of comparative stuff. Fair enough, the Rafale took top place (for a variety of reasons).

The current effortS are not so. Now each vendor is proposing a custom make, in addition the US is being told to release technologies that the US does not export (at least to India, do not know if to other nations). And, there are other geo-political factors in play now. Neither were custom techs, release of sensitive techs or geo-politics in play for the MMRCA competition. And, did your equation EVER have exporting such planes?

I am not saying the F-16/18 are THE best when compared to the others. A MiG-35 will come in at a far lower cost (per my expectations, again, I am not sure about that). And, I would imagine France would release perhaps every tech she has to India, which the US *will not*. BUT, what about some other factors? Geo-politics, especially longer term? The Af-Pak guy has already started making some +ve noise.



I am a lot more confident that Modi is behaving like a political leader must. His moves are WAY beyond Indo-US relations, forget a puny F-16/18. The man is really horse trading and Indians (NOT NRIs) NEED to support him. Instead I find people hashing old stuff and making decisions on pure fear. Will get you nowhere.

We cannot expect things to change in a short time. As I have said there are Babus in the US too that would love to ensure a lot of these things do not happen and be extremely glad to cooperate with a lot of people posting here. Imagine that.

Carter has stuck his neck out.

[NRao]

What the PRC is doing today to the Indonesians and Filipinos, they will do to us on land and sea soon enough.

Already done.

Chinese are in PoK and have told Pakistan that POK needs to be formally incorporated into Pakistan for the China-Pakistan $47 billion project to move forward. Meanwhile China has told India that India occupied Kashmir is a disputed territory.

[chetak]

I can't get over the feeling that something stinks. why are the DOD faqers trying so hard?? and for what??

we have no shared values and mutual interests as long as the arm and support the pakis

U.S. Dept of Defense ‏@DeptofDefense 7h7 hours ago

Our countries and militaries are closer than ever before - brought together by shared values and mutual interests

Manohar Parrikar

[ShauryaT]

What the PRC is doing today to the Indonesians and Filipinos, they will do to us on land and sea soon enough.

Already done.

Chinese are in PoK and have told Pakistan that POK needs to be formally incorporated into Pakistan for the China-Pakistan $47 billion project to move forward. Meanwhile China has told India that India occupied Kashmir is a disputed territory.

You think the US will help us evict the Chinese from Pakistan and Kashmir back to India, is your point? Why would we invest in producing an F16, is it not better to invest in LCA Mk2? or are we now so rich to have two western MRCA's in our kitty with F18 and Rafale? Or do you think the US is going to provide us with engine tech? How about a power plant for the AC, for its willingness to "sell" an EMALS to India?

[member_22733]

What the PRC is doing today to the Indonesians and Filipinos, they will do to us on land and sea soon enough.

Already done.

Chinese are in PoK and have told Pakistan that POK needs to be formally incorporated into Pakistan for the China-Pakistan $47 billion project to move forward. Meanwhile China has told India that India occupied Kashmir is a disputed territory.

Knowing all this unkil gives F16s and ASW aircrafts to Bakistan.

What's the difference between massa and cheen?

[arshyam]

Bring in Mumbai/Pakistan, and other stuff extraneous to the centrality, I get bored and tune out.

Why do you think this is extraneous? Isn't terror sponsored by an actor aided by this so-called ally germane to the debate? Or are we supposed to look only at China because you (and some other 'seniors') and the Americans say so?

Prem Kumar sir is right. What are the Americans giving up to enter this so-called embrace? A future (as of now) Chinese threat needs to be countered, sure, but the real and immediate Paki threat needs to be acted upon too, if not first. So I see nothing wrong in asking the Americans to sacrifice a few things if they want to court us. It can't be one sided, whatever the spinners might say.

When the Americans show up in India, I appears (to me) that BRF is becoming an American talking shop - lots of propaganda on this thread. Fine, but what about analysis? Just posting some beltway think tank speech does not count. And as Ramana sir says, if all arguments aren't looked at, the 'youngsters' (I certainly am one) will simply tune out. Wonder what it is about the Americans that make us so starry eyed?

Rants about historical wrongs done us don't qualify—they merely waste the bandwidth of members who must plow through them.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" - George Santayana

P.S. Someone mentioned earlier that this is going to be a shift like the run up to the Indo-Soviet treaty of 1971. Interestingly, that shift coincided with the hobbling of our nascent though promising aerospace industry through large scale imports of MiG fighters starting with the -21. And the Marut was the one and the only, with no further developments. Cut to today, the Tejas is at the cusp of greatness - and there is lots of chatter about some old teenagers. Will history repeat itself? Something to look out for.

[NRao]

Already done.

Chinese are in PoK and have told Pakistan that POK needs to be formally incorporated into Pakistan for the China-Pakistan $47 billion project to move forward. Meanwhile China has told India that India occupied Kashmir is a disputed territory.

You think the US will help us evict the Chinese from Pakistan and Kashmir back to India, is your point? Why would we invest in producing an F16, is it not better to invest in LCA Mk2? or are we now so rich to have two western MRCA's in our kitty with F18 and Rafale? Or do you think the US is going to provide us with engine tech? How about a power plant for the AC, for its willingness to "sell" an EMALS to India?

For a pound of flesh. Yes.

That is the way the world works.

Check out Pakistan. They kill US soldiers and YET get free F-16 Block 52.



However, the point I am trying to make here is that Modi has started to move in the direction the way Pakistan, China, Turkey, etc behave. They ALL have taken advantage of the US and then moved in the direction they want to move. Modi has exhibited this behaviour.




BUT, coming back to your question, India needs no ones help to evict the Chinese, India can do it herself. Where India will need help in the near future is to become immune to her actions. India has not reached that stage yet. When India acts the world should listen/watch. All this X state, etc, which exists everywhere should not matter. And, Indians lose fear of acting.

[ShauryaT]

However, the point I am trying to make here is that Modi has started to move in the direction the way Pakistan, China, Turkey, etc behave. They ALL have taken advantage of the US and then moved in the direction they want to move. Modi has exhibited this behavior.

Thank you for deciphering the Modi govt behavior. It is very inspiring to know that we are moving like Pakistan, Turkey. China you say.....they have seldom compromised on their core interests vis-a-vis the US. Name a few, please?

BUT, coming back to your question, India needs no ones help to evict the Chinese, India can do it herself. Where India will need help in the near future is to become immune to her actions. India has not reached that stage yet. When India acts the world should listen/watch. All this X state, etc, which exists everywhere should not matter. And, Indians lose fear of acting.

We should loose fear of acting alright and the fear that needs loosing is this fear of the US by testing a few nukes. Instead of sending a CLEAR message that India DOES NOT WANT the US in her backyard in the long term, we are inviting her. Pathetic, I say.

There is only one way to sell this to India and it is to acknowledge that India has LOST its willingness to be an independent power and needs the protection of other poles to preserve its interests - subservient to the pole we get support from......let us do some plain speak. These choices have costs. Do spell out the costs and consequences, and not just risks.

[arshyam]

Instead I find people hashing old stuff and making decisions on pure fear. Will get you nowhere.

Interesting choice of words, NRao-ji. Some people want to hold the US to their claims with the full picture, it's described as 'fear'.

Carter has stuck his neck out.

Carter most likely won't be around come Nov - what's happens then?

Why don't you post your analysis of what things will look like if India does what the US wants it to do? How our geo-strategic calculus will change vis-a-vis China, and how our strategic programmes will be impacted? Lastly, how will the persistent trouble to our west and the larger West Asian (not 'Middle East') region evolve?

My bottomline is simple, any signing of these 'foundational' agreements without corresponding demonstrable actions by the US on issues affecting us will be folly, and we will repent it in the years to come.

[prahaar]

Indian Navy has been at the forefront of supporting closer cooperation with the US. Indian priorities are indicated by close cooperation with US and Russia simultaneously. Which other country hosts US navy ships while leasing INS Chakra-II. India should play with all the sides without compromising it's unstated red lines. I feel China vote in UN has made things clearer.

[krishna_krishna]

Intelligent debates begin with intelligent hypotheses. Rants about historical wrongs done us don't qualify—they merely waste the bandwidth of members who must plow through them.

Nations cannot/do not/should not behave like individuals. Nations must keep long term interests front and center even as the circumstances change.

What the PRC is doing today to the Indonesians and Filipinos, they will do to us on land and sea soon enough. We don't have the money, the capacity or the will to deter them. We need to team up with countries who have converging interests and the resources to execute.

If you want to lay down a viable hypothesis on what form the team-up should or should not take, I'm happy to join in civil debate. Bring in Mumbai/Pakistan, and other stuff extraneous to the centrality, I get bored and tune out.

so u cut and run without intelligent debate ?

Cosmo_R no disrespect but let's continue with civil debate, fact that not even a month ago massa gifted them F solar and vipers to them , do you consider this history ?

Secondly POTUS made a statement that india should move away from aggressive military doctrines putting equal equal with Porkis now you tell me how is this strategic partnership or that matter any interest of ours fulfilled here.

Also, fundamental to any relationship be it personal or nations is actions and I haven't seen or recall any action massa has done to come to help us in any conflict ever.

Regarding chipanda doing that to us they tried in Ladakh and got bloody nose and thy know that , fact we have to realize that we are not a small by anymeans and if they knew we were weak or they can succeed another 62 would have happened. I have few ideas on your question for alliance we can do what we are already doing to next level with Vietnam arm them with short range missiles and see the fun. We do not have to become another UK.

Ramana sir again no disrespect to Cosmo _R

[NRao]

It is very inspiring to know that we are moving like Pakistan, Turkey. China you say....

Those nations moved in a direction that benefits them and not others.

India can move in a direction that benefits everyone.

In both cases the US is out of the picture.

We should loose fear of acting alright and the fear that needs loosing is this fear of the US by testing a few nukes.

So, do you think India is at a point where she could take a punch and give it back with equal force? If so go ahead.

Personally, I am with Modi on this: far more important to figure out how to give a job to 18 million Indians joining the work force every year.

Is testing a nuke important - absolutely (and for a variety of reasons). But there is one little stuff that, IMHO, is far more imp. And, India has a very small window to get it right.

Instead of sending a CLEAR message that India DOES NOT WANT the US in her backyard in the long term, we are inviting her. Pathetic, I say

At the moment, India has very little choice. Actually India does not want anyone in her backyard. But, under the circumstance China happens to be the bigger throne.


And, if I may ask, what are the alternatives? The F-18/18 seems to have an economic benefit too - if things go according to plans India will gain CAPEX.

[NRao]

Indian Navy has been at the forefront of supporting closer cooperation with the US.

Not true.

Indian navy has worked very, very closely with PACOM *only*.

IN is not really welcome (by USN) in the ME. They may throw a party or two, but IN gets a real reception in PACOM. Check out MPs Dec trip - *all* PACOM.

Indian priorities are indicated by close cooperation with US and Russia simultaneously. Which other country hosts US navy ships while leasing INS Chakra-II. India should play with all the sides without compromising it's unstated red lines. I feel China vote in UN has made things clearer.

India's stated stand is not to take sides. BUT, China is an odd ball. And, this is viewed as Indo-US, but it is actually a much larger engagement. Singapore has unofficially complained about Indian behavior (under MMS). Outside of Indonesia all others have wanted India to act her size. That list does not include Japan/Aussie

[ramana]

A lame duck administration doesn't have much neck to stick out. I don't see why you keep seeing neck when there is none.

NaMo wants to create a new aircraft mfg line in India after the Rafale fiasco. That is a primary goal. And he wants to entice US to set up the line.

Its part of #MII initiative.

This Carter visit at so late in the Admin tenure is a optics one. Not much will come out.
--------------------------------------------------
Let me state some thing I learnt for Chinese friends from KMT era origins.

India was the cause of double conquests of China: Buddhism via the Tang dynasty and the Opium Wars during the British times.
I argued both times India had no control over itself to have done bad to China. They said it doesn't matter.
What they see is the end effect. The second colonization led to the rise of Communism which devastated them.
Sure they are not taking responsibility etc. But that is the perception.
To add to that Nehru was doing hanky-panky with US in Tibet throughout the late 50s. The files are not released yet.

Best option for India is to let China do its thing and not stop the exit of Western colonization of Asia.
This started with Vasco Da Gama and many waves of Westerners.

But that does not mean India should make itself weak as MMS was doing. Keep quiet and keep your powder dry. And know your strength.

Current strength is business skills and spiritual stuff.
Military power and economic uplift are need to keep the above skills going.

[ShauryaT]

At the moment, India has very little choice. Actually India does not want anyone in her backyard. But, under the circumstance China happens to be the bigger throne.

An assertion that needs much debate in the public space. A hand shake with the US can serve our interests. No need for a hug or an umbrella.

And, if I may ask, what are the alternatives? The F-18/18 seems to have an economic benefit too - if things go according to plans India will gain CAPEX.

Alternative to what? There is ever only one alternative to stand up on your own two feet and minimize ANY support from external poles. I am willing to debate the details here over sea, land, air, economic, FP, geo-strategic ...... in each and every one of these areas, there are viable choices available.....

Request just one thing, talk of India....do not compare us to Pakistan, phillipines, Turkey, etc.....

[ShauryaT]

Best option for India is to let China do its thing and not stop the exit of Western colonization of Asia.
This started with Vasco Da Gama and many waves of Westerners.

But that does not mean India should make itself weak as MMS was doing. Keep quiet and keep your powder dry. And know your strength.

Current strength is business skills and spiritual stuff.
Military power and economic uplift are need to keep the above skills going.

Completely agree and in the process, shake firm hands with the US, where needed. I do acknowledge US presence in the Pacific, E/SE Asia has helped India, vis-a-vis China. Foresee this exit to play out over many decades, so no rush be under anyone's bear hug but invest we must!!!

[ShauryaT]

NaMo wants to create a new aircraft mfg line in India after the Rafale fiasco. That is a primary goal. And he wants to entice US to set up the line.

OK, this does not HAVE to be a military aircraft line. Much better to invest in a civilian line with India's HUGE needs in the area. This can also serve our tactical and strategic lift needs. Along with the need to make maybe engines for civilian, transport and fighter jets. Why a military platform, which has only limited numbers from IAF/IN and is itself on its way out in the long term in the host nation.

Such a civilian/transport aircraft can also attract global servicing needs of such a platform and can work for exports, with the help of US geo-political and commercial inroads supported by our low cost production facilities.

[NRao]

Instead I find people hashing old stuff and making decisions on pure fear. Will get you nowhere.

Interesting choice of words, NRao-ji. Some people want to hold the US to their claims with the full picture, it's described as 'fear'.

I have said this before, the "US" is *not* monolithic. Be very clear that there are people within the US that hate India. Furthermore there are people within the USN (that specific) that dislike "India". Then there Paki, China, etc centric groups that will work against India. So do not expect smooth sailing.

However, the idea is to act within that small strip within a Venn diagram.

I had said that the US and India will get close - in 1997 (I had also said then that they will part ways in 2040!!! SO go figure).

I do not see this MII stuff to be a permanent fixture.

Carter has stuck his neck out.

Carter most likely won't be around come Nov - what's happens then?
[/quote]

Very good question.

Carter has set up a tiny group within the DoD to safeguard Indian interests. And, if you have not been following PACOM has been batting for India for eons. They will continue to do so. But, with Carter potentially leaving, it may slow down. which is why he visited India thsi quickly - to cement a few things that cannot be undone or will take a lot to undo.

Why don't you post your analysis of what things will look like if India does what the US wants it to do? How our geo-strategic calculus will change vis-a-vis China, and how our strategic programmes will be impacted? Lastly, how will the persistent trouble to our west and the larger West Asian (not 'Middle East') region evolve?

I used to do that. In fact a friend of mine became extremely rich (trading FX) based on my "predictions" (he made a ton on the election of Merkel). Too old now to get too deep.

However, SA and UAE is on the up, Iran is down. IF UN decides on acting, India has said she will get involved in Syria - under UN.

My bottomline is simple, any signing of these 'foundational' agreements without corresponding demonstrable actions by the US on issues affecting us will be folly, and we will repent it in the years to come.

The problem is that you are looking at the US as one entity - monolithic. She is NOT. India will get bombarded by some Christian group or the other. There will be a Hillary that will be a threat. There will be a SD that will have a bias for TSP or China. These are given, documented. So, it is up to Indians to prepare for them. Do you honesty believe that living in the US is all great? Beer cans to everything have been thrown. Kids prevented from joining sports teams. Heck such is life. The *only* stuff I will grant you is if you side swiped - something totally out of the blue. Rest you need to prepare, that is your responsibility. And, yes, nothing is fair. But, then, that is the beauty in life - streaming challenges.